Kishan Lal v. State of Haryana

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Sura, Addl. A.G., Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J: ***** This is a revision petition against the order dated 11.08.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 13/15.03.2004, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad, convicting the petitioner-accused (herein referred as 'the petitioner') under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 279 I.P.C. and two years under Section 304-A, I.P.C. The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are that on 11.05.1997 Sub Inspector Jai Kishan alongwith Constable Badri Parshad No.1561, constable Mahabir Singh No.882, while patrolling, was going from Daryapur to village Karnoli. After covering 3 kms distance towards Sirsa, they noticed that an accident had taken place.

One Bhajan Lal was present there. He recorded his statement containing allegations that he was going to his fields from village Gilla Khera on his bicycle. When he reached near village Daryapur, then he saw the petitioner while driving the truck bearing registration No.HYN-8691 rashly and negligently was going towards Sirsa Side and hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side He also saw that after hitting the motorcycle, truck went into the ditches and Criminal Revision No.2042 of 2004 2 hit against eucalyptus trees standing in the ditches. Both the riders of the motorcycle turned down and died spot. He also named the truck driver as Krishan Lal son of Kalli Ram, resident of Patanpuri, Police Station Butana District Karnal. On the aforesaid statement, Bhajan Lal, Sub Inspector Jai Kishan reported the matter to the police station whereupon FIR was registered. The Investigating Officer dispatched both the dead bodies, recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the rough site plan.

On completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. He was charged for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined Bhajan Lal Complainant (PW1), Gulshan (PW2) brother of the deceased Sunil Dutt, who had identified the dead body, Rajan (PW3) another relative of the deceased, Ramesh (PW4) brother of the deceased Naresh, Dr.D.L.Bansal (PW5), who proved the post-mortem report and Subhash Chandar mechanic, Haryana Roadways (PW6) who proved the mechanical report of both the vehicles. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction His appeal was also dismissed. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the testimony of PW1 Bhajan Lal, stands uncorroborated from any independent source, does not weigh with the mind of the Court.

When the testimony of a witness stands to the scrutiny of the Court and is found to be quite fair, probable and trustworthy, then such sole testimony cannot be disbelieved or discredited mere on the ground that it was not corroborated Criminal Revision No.2042 of 2004 3 by any other witness. Bhajan Lal in all probabilities was present at the spot. Questions during cross-examination convince the consensus of the Court that he in all probabilities was present at the spot and saw the occurrence. Bhajan Lal has stated that when the truck came at the first instance, he could not see the driver but when it struck against the riders of the motorcycle and fell into the ditches, he had the opportunity to see the driver and the conductor and the driver disclosed his name as Krishan Lal. He had also caught them but thereafter they ran away. Thus, in these circumstances, the testimony of Bhajan Lal cannot be said to be untruthful regarding the identification of the petitioner.

Bhajan Lal, during his cross-examination, has categorically explained that when he had caught Krishan Lal, he had disclosed his name however on seeing the police party, he had escaped. He has further stated that search of both the dead bodies was conducted in his presence. He has not minced the matters saying that when he reached near the truck, the petitioner and the conductor came down from the truck. Besides, he had no motive or enmity to depose false against the petitioner. At the same time, the truck was taken into possession by the police and the petitioner was arrested on the very next day. The mechanical report conducted by the witness also corroborates the fact that it was damaged on account of being hit with the trees. Both the Courts have consistently found that the petitioner was guilty of the offences and no such defect or illegality has been found in the findings returned by the Courts below.

Bhajan Lal has further stated in so many words that the petitioner was rash and negligent in his conduct. Moreover, the fact that after striking the motorcycle, the truck fell into the ditches and was damaged, goes a long way to prove the rash and negligent conduct of the petitioner. Criminal Revision No.2042 of 2004 4 Now the question is whether the non-examination of the investigating officer is a ground to throw away the prosecution case ? In this regard, it may be observed that majority of the documents stand proved by the witness. Investigating Officer was not the eye witness to the occurrence. The other part of the investigation i.e. mechanical reports were proved by PW6 Subhash Chander, Mechanic, identification of the dead bodies was made by PW2 Gulshan and PW3 Rajan, post mortem report was proved by PW5 Dr.D.L.Bansal, therefore, nothing remained to prove for which the necessity of investigating officer was required.

In the given circumstances of the case, investigating Officer cannot be said to be material witness, in the absence of which, the whole version of the prosecution case would be discarded. While examining on the quantum of sentence, it may be observed that two live bodies were turned into corpse by the rash and negligent act of the petitioner within twinkling of an eye. Such ruthless conduct of the unscrupulous elements needs to be checked. If such unmannered and rash drivers are given indulgence then the other such type of miscreants would take the liberty to move on the roads fearlessly and carefreely. In the circumstances, sentence awarded by the Courts below appears to be already on the lower side. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed.

19.01.2010 mamta-II (A.N.Jindal) Judge